6 ms·

The reason they want to remove the risk is because it takes years to prune bad talent.

by DSingularity 5y ago

chunkyks 5y ago
And they're also in the situation where good talent isn't going to tolerate that rubbish.
- Swizec 5y ago
  The worst performer you tolerate on your team sets the tone for the whole team. The best teams embrace and level up their low performers and make the whole team better. The delta can’t be too big.
hnzix 5y ago
They'll miss most of the good talent if they're doing 6 interviews for a standard role. The candidates with skills and options will go elsewhere and you'll be left with the desperate dregs.
madengr 5y ago
How? I have seen people with 25 years service (electrical engineer) walked out with zero notice. Unless you are unionized, you can be fired on the spot.
- dahart 5y ago
  Increasing risk of liability for firing is real, as is increasing oversight of discrimination law. You can be fired on the spot for breaking company policy, or doing something illegal. Without more info, that’s what I might assume you saw. But getting fired for mildly low performance without notice is not normal, at least not among engineers in large companies, and assuming it’s not because a division or the company is being shuttered. Companies have to give people feedback and give them time to respond. Failure to do that can and sometimes does result in legal action compelling the company to prove the employee was failing and that the company did not unfairly discriminate even unknowingly, which is costly, difficult, and risky. Plus, most companies aren’t capricious with firing engineers, and are also aware that hiring is expensive and employee ROI can take time.
  - learc83 5y ago
    > result in legal action compelling the company to prove the employee was failing The company doesn’t have to prove that the employee was failing. It’s perfectly legal for a company to fire an employee because they the employee likes the wrong football team. The employee or people pursuing legal action on behalf of multiple employees has to prove that the company fires the employee(s) because they were a member of a protected class. Assuming there are no incriminating emails stating that that was the reason, the only realistic way to do that is to show a pattern. If an employee decides to sue, whether you had them on a documented performance improvement plan for 6 months or 6 days isn’t going to be the deciding factor.
    - dahart 5y ago
      > The company doesn’t have to prove that the employee was failing. They do if the employee sues claiming age discrimination, for example. At least, they have to defend the accusation to show it’s not discrimination. When someone has been at the company for 25 years like in the parent’s example, and they get fired abruptly without notice for liking the wrong football team, it’s likely the stated reason is untrue and inviting a challenge. > If an employee decides to sue, whether you had them on a documented performance improvement plan for 6 months or 6 days isn’t going to be the deciding factor. It certainly helps show that the company isn’t discriminating arbitrarily, and gave the employee notice and a chance to improve the situation. BTW actual legal action isn’t necessary for firing to be getting harder. The fear of legal action is all you need, and that is in fact going up.
      - learc83 5y ago
        >They do if the employee sues claiming age discrimination, for example. At least, they have to defend the accusation to show it’s not discrimination. They don't have to show anything. The employee has to prove that it's age discrimination. >When someone has been at the company for 25 years like in the parent’s example, and they get fired abruptly without notice for liking the wrong football team, it’s likely the stated reason is untrue and inviting a challenge. Without a pattern of discrimination this isn't a problem. If there is pattern of discrimination then it is. However, if that's the case it doesn't matter how much documentation they have. >It certainly helps show that the company isn’t discriminating arbitrarily, and gave the employee notice and a chance to improve the situation. You can't discriminate arbitrarily. Discrimination in this context means firing someone because they are part of a protected class. >gave the employee notice and a chance to improve the situation. Whether you gave someone the chance to correct the situation or not isn't relevant. >BTW actual legal action isn’t necessary for firing to be getting harder. The fear of legal action is all you need, and that is in fact going up. The number of charges filed with the EEOC has gone down over the last 20 years https://www.eeoc.gov/statistics/charge-statistics-charges-filed-eeoc-fy-1997-through-fy-2020 https://www.eeoc.gov/statistics/charge-statistics-charges-fi... https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-roundup-part-i-10-things-to-know-about-2020-charges-and-litigation-statistics https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-roundup-part-i-10-... "At the same time, FY2020 saw the lowest number of charges received from workers in more than two decades. The agency received 67,448 charges—continuing the steady downward trend since 2017 in the numbers of discrimination charges filed with the EEOC."
throwawaylinux 5y ago
Taking years to prune bad talent is another sign of a problem in the organization.
2001lodyssee 5y ago
In my long and storied career, well long at least, every single truly heinous, project-killin', crazy person actually interviewed pretty well. Honestly, I don't have a good solution to the problem.
- Rapzid 5y ago
  Fire fast. Use that 90 day try out period. Contract-to-hire. In the past I would never have been interested in a contract-to-hire. These days though if the company and role is right, and this an option to short-cut a ridiculous interview process, I might spring for it.
  - duped 5y ago
    Just personally I would never accept an offer that was contract for hire and think it's downright insulting a suggestion. My family needs health insurance and the market has never been so cold that I'd be desperate enough to take such a garbage offer.
    - Rapzid 5y ago
      Nothing about contracting precludes having health insurance though? For the roles and situations I'm talking about this would all just be factored into the rates.
      - tfehring 5y ago
        Even if they can just pay for health insurance out of pocket, they’d be switching plans twice, and each time they’d reset their deductible and possibly need to find a new doctor. When I was an actuary we used to do “intern to hire” for unemployed recent grads, but I can’t imagine leaving a full time position for a contract-to-hire position. I think for me personally the opportunity would have to be really interesting and the comp upon converting to FTE would need to be at least double my previous comp (meaning the contracted rate would probably be something like 4x my implied hourly).
      - 5y ago
zhte415 5y ago
Do you have probation period where you work? i.e. if an employee doesn't live up to expectation, release with short notice? Where I am, a 3 year contract typically carries a 3 month probation period, and a 1 year contract carries a 1 month probation period. The problem is management are often too busy or overwhelmed with other stuff to observe and provide feedback until someone's passed the probation period then releasing them becomes a bureaucratic nightmare - and when the new hire's not getting feedback, you can be sure not a lot of the rest of the team are.
- sgerenser 5y ago
  Probation periods in the US are rare, especially for white collar positions like software engineers. Of course, that’s mostly because of at will employment where either side can choose to part ways at any time.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    That sounds like infinite probation period to me
technofiend 5y ago
Isn't that one of the things Netflix is famous for getting right? Generous severance but quick to exit you if you're not a good fit.
caoilte 5y ago
I don't think it's that at all. It's very easy to fire people in US. I think they are trying to hire cultists. The harder it is to get in the more people think they're special once they do and the less likely they are to leave.
- finolex1 5y ago
  The difficulty isn't with regards to the process/legality. It's more behavioral/organizational
CogitoCogito 5y ago
> The reason they want to remove the risk is because it takes years to prune bad talent. I've never understood this given that the hiring is so often at will.
postalrat 5y ago
They could prune that talent overnight if they wanted.

The reason they want to remove the risk is because it takes years to prune bad talent.

chunkyks 5y ago

And they're also in the situation where good talent isn't going to tolerate that rubbish.

Swizec 5y ago
The worst performer you tolerate on your team sets the tone for the whole team. The best teams embrace and level up their low performers and make the whole team better. The delta can’t be too big.

hnzix 5y ago

They'll miss most of the good talent if they're doing 6 interviews for a standard role. The candidates with skills and options will go elsewhere and you'll be left with the desperate dregs.

madengr 5y ago

How? I have seen people with 25 years service (electrical engineer) walked out with zero notice. Unless you are unionized, you can be fired on the spot.

dahart 5y ago
Increasing risk of liability for firing is real, as is increasing oversight of discrimination law. You can be fired on the spot for breaking company policy, or doing something illegal. Without more info, that’s what I might assume you saw. But getting fired for mildly low performance without notice is not normal, at least not among engineers in large companies, and assuming it’s not because a division or the company is being shuttered. Companies have to give people feedback and give them time to respond. Failure to do that can and sometimes does result in legal action compelling the company to prove the employee was failing and that the company did not unfairly discriminate even unknowingly, which is costly, difficult, and risky. Plus, most companies aren’t capricious with firing engineers, and are also aware that hiring is expensive and employee ROI can take time.
- learc83 5y ago
  > result in legal action compelling the company to prove the employee was failing The company doesn’t have to prove that the employee was failing. It’s perfectly legal for a company to fire an employee because they the employee likes the wrong football team. The employee or people pursuing legal action on behalf of multiple employees has to prove that the company fires the employee(s) because they were a member of a protected class. Assuming there are no incriminating emails stating that that was the reason, the only realistic way to do that is to show a pattern. If an employee decides to sue, whether you had them on a documented performance improvement plan for 6 months or 6 days isn’t going to be the deciding factor.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > The company doesn’t have to prove that the employee was failing. They do if the employee sues claiming age discrimination, for example. At least, they have to defend the accusation to show it’s not discrimination. When someone has been at the company for 25 years like in the parent’s example, and they get fired abruptly without notice for liking the wrong football team, it’s likely the stated reason is untrue and inviting a challenge. > If an employee decides to sue, whether you had them on a documented performance improvement plan for 6 months or 6 days isn’t going to be the deciding factor. It certainly helps show that the company isn’t discriminating arbitrarily, and gave the employee notice and a chance to improve the situation. BTW actual legal action isn’t necessary for firing to be getting harder. The fear of legal action is all you need, and that is in fact going up.
    - learc83 5y ago
      >They do if the employee sues claiming age discrimination, for example. At least, they have to defend the accusation to show it’s not discrimination. They don't have to show anything. The employee has to prove that it's age discrimination. >When someone has been at the company for 25 years like in the parent’s example, and they get fired abruptly without notice for liking the wrong football team, it’s likely the stated reason is untrue and inviting a challenge. Without a pattern of discrimination this isn't a problem. If there is pattern of discrimination then it is. However, if that's the case it doesn't matter how much documentation they have. >It certainly helps show that the company isn’t discriminating arbitrarily, and gave the employee notice and a chance to improve the situation. You can't discriminate arbitrarily. Discrimination in this context means firing someone because they are part of a protected class. >gave the employee notice and a chance to improve the situation. Whether you gave someone the chance to correct the situation or not isn't relevant. >BTW actual legal action isn’t necessary for firing to be getting harder. The fear of legal action is all you need, and that is in fact going up. The number of charges filed with the EEOC has gone down over the last 20 years https://www.eeoc.gov/statistics/charge-statistics-charges-filed-eeoc-fy-1997-through-fy-2020 https://www.eeoc.gov/statistics/charge-statistics-charges-fi... https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-roundup-part-i-10-things-to-know-about-2020-charges-and-litigation-statistics https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-roundup-part-i-10-... "At the same time, FY2020 saw the lowest number of charges received from workers in more than two decades. The agency received 67,448 charges—continuing the steady downward trend since 2017 in the numbers of discrimination charges filed with the EEOC."

throwawaylinux 5y ago

Taking years to prune bad talent is another sign of a problem in the organization.

2001lodyssee 5y ago

In my long and storied career, well long at least, every single truly heinous, project-killin', crazy person actually interviewed pretty well. Honestly, I don't have a good solution to the problem.

Rapzid 5y ago
Fire fast. Use that 90 day try out period. Contract-to-hire. In the past I would never have been interested in a contract-to-hire. These days though if the company and role is right, and this an option to short-cut a ridiculous interview process, I might spring for it.
- duped 5y ago
  Just personally I would never accept an offer that was contract for hire and think it's downright insulting a suggestion. My family needs health insurance and the market has never been so cold that I'd be desperate enough to take such a garbage offer.
  - Rapzid 5y ago
    Nothing about contracting precludes having health insurance though? For the roles and situations I'm talking about this would all just be factored into the rates.
    - tfehring 5y ago
      Even if they can just pay for health insurance out of pocket, they’d be switching plans twice, and each time they’d reset their deductible and possibly need to find a new doctor. When I was an actuary we used to do “intern to hire” for unemployed recent grads, but I can’t imagine leaving a full time position for a contract-to-hire position. I think for me personally the opportunity would have to be really interesting and the comp upon converting to FTE would need to be at least double my previous comp (meaning the contracted rate would probably be something like 4x my implied hourly).
    - 5y ago

zhte415 5y ago

Do you have probation period where you work? i.e. if an employee doesn't live up to expectation, release with short notice? Where I am, a 3 year contract typically carries a 3 month probation period, and a 1 year contract carries a 1 month probation period. The problem is management are often too busy or overwhelmed with other stuff to observe and provide feedback until someone's passed the probation period then releasing them becomes a bureaucratic nightmare - and when the new hire's not getting feedback, you can be sure not a lot of the rest of the team are.

sgerenser 5y ago
Probation periods in the US are rare, especially for white collar positions like software engineers. Of course, that’s mostly because of at will employment where either side can choose to part ways at any time.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  That sounds like infinite probation period to me

technofiend 5y ago

Isn't that one of the things Netflix is famous for getting right? Generous severance but quick to exit you if you're not a good fit.

caoilte 5y ago

I don't think it's that at all. It's very easy to fire people in US. I think they are trying to hire cultists. The harder it is to get in the more people think they're special once they do and the less likely they are to leave.

finolex1 5y ago
The difficulty isn't with regards to the process/legality. It's more behavioral/organizational

CogitoCogito 5y ago

> The reason they want to remove the risk is because it takes years to prune bad talent. I've never understood this given that the hiring is so often at will.

postalrat 5y ago

They could prune that talent overnight if they wanted.